Assessments and predictions of patient quality of life (QoL) permeate many veterinary decisions, including (1) whether to perform a procedure due to concurrent QoL issues, (2) whether a procedure will negatively affect QoL in the near or distant future, and (3) whether QoL is poor enough to warrant euthanasia. In order to understand how veterinarians manage decisions relating to patient well-being, interviews with 41 veterinarians and over 100 hours of observations of 10 veterinarians were conducted. Participants held diverse views regarding the type of parameters that should be included when defining QoL. Interestingly, they also held differing views about who should be assessing patient QoL, with some participants believing that animals' owners were better able to assess patient QoL than veterinarians. For these veterinarians, respecting the client's autonomy in deciding what was best for the patient weighed heavily in their decisions. Other veterinarians felt that they, rather than the client, were the best assessors of QoL and felt justified in persuading clients to follow a certain course of action (often considered a paternalistic approach). These findings raise some interesting questions for the profession. What role should veterinarians play when assessing patient QoL? When is paternalism acceptable or even mandatory in veterinary medicine? Does respecting client autonomy also require an evaluation of the client's abilities to make appropriate decisions for the patient? The lack of uniformity in defining and assessing patient QoL highlights the need for increased dialogue with respect to veterinarians' responsibilities to both animals and clients.

Since animal minds are private, so their perception of their own quality of life (QoL) must be also. Anthropocentrism, the interpretation of reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience, has to be guarded against in any assessment of animal welfare; for domestic pets, misapprehensions about their olfactory and cognitive abilities appear to present the greatest challenge to their welfare. Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human qualities to animals, presents a particular problem when considering companion animals, since most bonds between owners and their pets appear to be based upon a perception of the pet as almost human. Many owners report that their dogs, cats and horses are capable of feeling complex emotions, such as pride and guilt, that require a level of self-awareness that has been difficult to demonstrate even in chimpanzees. Such beliefs appear to contribute to the development of behavioural disorders in pets; for example, clinical experience suggests that the application of punishment by owners who attribute ‘guilt’ to their animals may unwittingly lead to compromised welfare. Anthropomorphic owners are also likely to be poor proxies for reporting their pets' QoL.

‘Animal Ethics Dilemma’ is a freely available computer-supported learning tool (www.animalethicsdilemma.net or www.aedilemma.net) which has been developed primarily for veterinary undergraduates but is applicable also to students in other fields of animal science. The objectives of the computer program are to promote students' understanding of the ethics related to animal use, to illustrate ethical dilemmas that arise in animal use, to broaden students' moral imagination, and to enable students to differentiate between types of ethical argument. The program comprises five case studies: (1) the blind hens; (2) ANDi the genetically modified monkey; (3) euthanasia of a healthy dog; (4) animal slaughter; and (5) rehabilitation of seals. Special consideration has been given to enhancing the pedagogic value of the program. Students can control their learning by selecting a variety of ways to explore the program; for example, they can navigate the program using the ‘Assist Me’ option, which explains the basis of the ethical arguments. Reality text provides details of real events on which the case is based, and a glossary of terminology is available for the students to explore. Selected access to a case template is also available, enabling students and teachers to create their own case studies. Evaluation of the program has been ongoing during its development.

Because it is the pet-owning public that normally provides the day-to-day care for companion animals, maintaining or improving standards in animal welfare is best achieved by engaging owners in the debate over an individual animal's quality of life (QoL). Veterinary practice teams (including veterinary surgeons and nurses) are in an ideal position to promote discussion of pets' QoL, as most owners respect and value their opinion. As well as educating each new generation of animal carers on appropriate husbandry, the veterinary profession can engage the pet-owning public in the scientific process of QoL assessment and the related debates concerning definitions of welfare and QoL. QoL assessment is a complex process with many influencing factors. The structure of an assessment will depend upon its purpose, which may be research, legislation, a certification scheme or, probably most usefully, a management tool to facilitate clinical decision-making. The process of completing a QoL assessment within a clinical environment may result in positive changes in human behaviour towards animals irrespective of the actual result of the assessment. This influence on human behaviour is a key test of validity for formal assessment systems that are designed to improve QoL.